The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1887-10-15

!, ways a tax on the consumers Il
4 their full amonnt, as revenue re
: form l should have conceded II
But do we not know that the price
D Of articles, almost without excep
: tion have risen when duties wer'
: put upon them, to fall again whel
, the tariff is reduced or removed
That has been so, whether tn,
3 particular article was an import
, ed or a home produced one.
Take for example the common
. necessarles Of life, salt and sugar
During the last four years before
. the war, Liverpool salt being fre,
from duty, ranged from 81 cents tt
$1.15 per sack.
From 1863 to 1872, when the dut,
was "a cents per hundred pound.
it ranged from $1.2O to. $4.1O pei
sack, selling during the years o.
this high tariff generally us high as
$500 per sack. Since the reduc'
ton of the duty to 12 cents pei
hundred it has not been above $3.50
and has ranged about $l.25. The
changes in the price of our domest-
ic salt have been quite as marked
and conc urrent with the like
change in the imported salt.
There is an inequality in the
duty on it, which might have been
and ought to be corrected. The
great meat packing monopolies of
Chicago and other parts of the
country and the flsh-curers get
u rebate on the foreign salt which
they have used in their exports
equal to the duty on it. While the
cheese ard butter makers, the
cattle-feeders, the farmers, in
short, all other consumers of salt,
do not get any refund on that
which they use. They must pay
indirectly to the government the
tax on all the foreign salt they use.
or an increased price, a tribute to
the salt makers, on the domestic
article. If the tariff duty is not
tax on the consumer, why refund
it to meat-packers and fishermen
upon their exports?
Sugar also free in the four years
from 1856 to 1860 sold as low as 4
cents per pound and not higher
than 9 cents, ranging generally
from 5 to 8 cents. 1t increased in
price more than the rate Of the
duty when one was put on and
came down correspondingly when
the duty was reduced.
During the last fiscal year the
government collected from duties
on sugars and molasses over Sol,
100000 nearly one dollar for every
man, woman and child in the land.
Over two cents per pound and
about 70 per cent on the value was
hws drawn from the people upon
me of their food articles in daily
lse. From $2O,0OO,OOOf to $25,O0O, i
700 should be saved the people on
his item of taxation. The sugar
PRODUCERS of this country have
,een enabled to increase the price
# their product two cents per lb.
f they did SO then this people have
,aid them tribute to the amount OF
in the past ten years. ,
The duty on foreign salt is still {
learly 100 per cent. But we have [
he salt manufacturer in the [
ountry organizing pool to limit
he production control the sales ,
nd keep up the price. They {
lain that this course is made nec-
ssary, because of overproduction.
they asked for protection in the /,
aritf to promote their industry. {
t has built up large and rich firms /.
n the business, which now re-
train and contract it. The last
Democratic House of Representa-
ives proposed to put. salt on the G
rec list and reduce the tariff on II
ugar. The Republicans opposed G
!. We must try it again this ,
winter. To take up again the pro- {
'osition that tariff duties are not 2
tax on the consumers. q
Our Government collected last :
ear in the custom houses $lS8,
O0,OW being at least three dollars
or each man, woman or child.
tratifying news indeed, that some
ody else paid it oil for US! What =
n easy way for a native to grow
ich! Why reduce the tariff, if by .
his plan all of our expenses can
e collected from foreign nations (?
10 ask any importer of goods, upon
'hich there is a duty, who pays it. a
Ie does. How does he get it back?
~ adding it to the price of the :
IL L Il